Sentences with phrase «getting tar sands»

Due to the successful delay of the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian oil companies to consider alternate routes for getting tar sands to market, including the Energy East Pipeline to New Brunswick and the Northern Gateway, which would flow west to Vancouver.

Keystone XL is designed to get the tar sands product to the China — not the U.S. market.

They now know that the pipeline would only generate 35 permanent full time positions, while putting America's breadbasket at risk of spills in order to get tar sands to ports where most will be refined and exported internationally.

And if you use water and polymer solvents instead of steam, rather than producing tar sands bitumen you get tar sands bitumen.

Not exact matches

All things considered, the energy you can get from burning a barrel of tar sands oil only

Getting equipment and people to the tar sands region costs loads of money.

On paper, the TransCanada Corporation now has the Trump administration's blessings to add hundreds of miles of pipeline to allow hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude produced by the Alberta tar sands to flow daily into the U.S., a permission twice denied by President Barack Obama two years ago (by veto and by outright denial of its permit), but it's premature to assume the project will actually get built.

Kinder Morgan can keep their pipeline, but Messrs. Weaver and Horgan have to get a law passed, that bans the importation of the dirty, tar sands into beautiful British Columbia.

But in the end, increasing pipeline capacity to get more tar sands oil to market is a clear contradiction to Canada's promises under the Paris Agreement.

But even with such reduction, the problem of tapping tar sands for petroleum just keeps getting stickier.

Regarding Keystone, I myself think it is clear that Obama should say no to Keystone, because it is something in his power to do, which would have some effect on retarding development of the tar sands (despite what the flawed State Department EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] said), and because we really wouldn't get any significant benefit from saying yes; no real oil security, few permanent jobs, and most of the money goes to Canada and to refiners in free - trade zones.

Business Insider reporter Robert Johnson tried to get a tour of the Alberta tar, err, oil sands operations, but was denied.

There is a SITLA connection in the tar sands story that is getting some press these days.

oil is getting more difficult to get, fracking or deep offshore are not environmentally friendy neither tar sands are, so using oil as efficiently as possible is a responsible choice.

Tar sand oil and coal would be the worst offenders, with natural gas imports getting the lowest tariffs.

When more energy is spent getting at the oil than the energy you extract, you stop drilling, so I don't see much future for tar sands, deep sea wells, etc. once the conventional sources get too expensive.

If Keystone is blocked, there is a very high chance the Chineese will get the oil - they are reportedly investing heavily in the tar sands (and just about any other source of oil they can).

Removing the carbon - storing forest ecosystem to get at the tar sands will be even more detrimental to carbon emissions levels.

Given the current uproar over Canada's tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline as well as past pitched battles over expanded oil and gas production, I have a hard time imagining Congressional Democrats or their environmentalist supporters getting behind the idea of opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling.

Alberta's Energy Minister Ron Liepert said himself that his biggest fear is getting stuck with «landlocked bitumen,» the type of the oil in the tar sands.

Prior to that, Gatti directed the Get Off Oil program for Environment America, where he helped lead that organization's efforts to reduce oil consumption and oppose dirty fuels, including leading efforts to increase vehicle fuel efficiency and stop tar sands oil extraction, and helping to launch the Charge Ahead California campaign to increase access to clean cars.

ExxonMobil is getting defensive about its response plans for the tar sands pipeline spill in Arkansas.

Considering even the most efficient Canadian producers of tar sands bitumen need to get at least $ 60 a barrel, somebody somewhere is losing big money.

Rubin tells us the heavy oil from the Tar Sands (or «oil sands» as the industry tries to say) costs more to refine, and gets less on the market — perhaps forty something a barrel, versus the 50 or 60 dollars a barrel we hear quoted as «the price of oil».

The massive pile comes from the Marathon Oil Company's refining of tar sands at its Detroit refinery, and it's been getting a lot of attention over the past few months.

In the latest attempt to greenwash the tar sands, Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been roaming the United States trying to convince American politicians and thought leaders that Alberta's dirty crude is a clean, responsible, sustainable — even «green» — source of energy, and that Canada's environmental record and climate change policy are as good as it gets.

The enviros perceive Obama as making a concession to them, while the reality is that the bottleneck in the tar sands pipeline system is being actively relieved and the industry is getting what it really wanted as its top priority, which was to relieve the surplus oil at Cushing.

Tar sands are scraping the bottom of the barrel, this should be a wake up call for an all out push to get PHEVs and bio synthetic fuels.

Big Oil has made tar sands development a global enterprise and will do whatever it takes to get mining equipment in, and the oil out, to foreign markets.

If tar sands producers were able to get bitumen to a port, it would command a much higher price.

Even on land, getting oil from tar sands depletes water and other resources and doubles oil's carbon footprint.

(3) Right now, tar sands derived fuel contributes to lower prices in the Midwest as it is too expensive to get it to world markets and thus there is actually a glut of supply in the much of the nation relative to world markets.

A number of the involved firms — refineries, storage companies, etc — are in line to get massive tax breaks related to changes to their facilities to handle the tar sands.

Right now, Congress is getting ready to vote on legislation to fast - track the Keystone XL pipeline — a project that would drive a rapid expansion of tar sands operations and put the lives of thousands of wolves at risk.

In other words, the EU, China and Latin America get the oil, the foreign - owned oil companies get the profits and North Americans are left cleaning up oil spills and shouldering the pollution burden from extracting and refining the dirty tar sands.

The communities along this corridor have long faced health impacts and pollution from these refineries, and the pollution is only getting worse as the refineries accept and process tar sands crude, which exposes residents to even greater levels of toxic chemicals, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon dioxide, and other harmful pollutants.

As readers of Planet3.0 might know I have been somewhat critical about the anti-pipelines movement (be it Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan or something else), my basic position (check the link for something more substantial) is that as long as selling the tar sand bitumen is massively profitable then the anti-pipeline strategy boils down to getting governments and corporations to turn their backs and walk away from huge sums of money.

If they allow pipelines to get permits, the tar sands will be developed.

The review used this assumption to get out of any meaningful consideration of the climate pollution from tar sands expansion, and in this time of worsening climate change that is not acceptable.

With the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in the middle of its environmental impact assessment by the U.S. State Department, getting a better understanding of what raw tar sands oil in a pipe means for our environment and safety is more important than ever.

While I think there is legitimate cause for concern as to whether Exxon really will pay for the damage they have caused (Ben Jervey has a good post on this point), the broader concern is that this 1980 law is currently allowing oil companies shipping tar sands oil to get away without contributing to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Quebec Adopts Cap - and - Trade Program Canada as a whole may be getting rightly pilloried for its governmental enthusiasm for tar sands and obstructing the latest international climate talks, but here's a counter point: Montreal Gazette reports that Quebec has just adopted a cap - and - trade system.

There's an tremendous op - ed piece in New York Times today from the Canadian writer Thomas Homer - Dixon, pointing out that a plurality of Canadians oppose this pipeline and are eager to get rid of the whole tar sands business.

Alberta's tar sand reserves are now estimated to contain more than 175 billion barrels of crude oil, but to get to the huge reserves, excavators must remove the topsoil and then take out the underlying tar sands by lifted them into dump trucks.

And it could potentially get uglier with the online release of Downstream, a new film that brings home the harsh realities of communities affected by the tar sands.

Jeff Rubin is a regular supplier of great quotes to TreeHugger (like his description of the tar sands: «You know you are at the bottom of the ninth when you are schlepping a tonne of sand to get a barrel of oil»)

If we just keep drilling, we're told time and again (and again), if we just tap into our plentiful domestic coal reserves, if we just build that tar sands pipeline, if we just let natural gas companies get in there and get the job done and get our natural gas trapped beneath our homes and farms.

With all the increased attention Canada's tar sands projects have been getting — both in terms of environmental impact and distributing them through pipeline into the United States — it's not surprising that many

We'll see when the next civil disobedience over our failed energy policy happens, and that may be in August at the Tar Sands sit in Washington D.C. Over 1,400 people have registered to get arrested to show their contempt for the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,700 mile long fuse to the world's biggest carbon bomb — Canada's tar sanTar Sands sit in Washington D.C. Over 1,400 people have registered to get arrested to show their contempt for the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,700 mile long fuse to the world's biggest carbon bomb — Canada's tar santar sands.

This time its target is Secretary Clinton; its quest is to get her to stop a new pipeline that would send Canadian tar sands oil into the US.